Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. makes a corporate announcement

The project’s total disclosed outlay is Rs 755 crore for the 100 MW turnkey wind project, implying a derived cost of Rs 7.55 crore per MW. The amount is the contract value, not necessarily the capitalised cost of the wind assets alone, because the scope includes turbine supply, EPC, execution and 10 years of post-commissioning O&M. ^[1]

Alignment with FY25 green-energy objectives

IOC’s FY25 investor presentation reported:

• Existing renewable-energy portfolio of 252.1 MW and a target of 31 GW by 2030. ^[2]
• Green-energy initiatives including a wholly owned renewable-energy subsidiary, Terra Clean, and a 650 MW round-the-clock renewable-power JV with NTPC Green. ^[2]

Against that framework, the 100 MW project is strategically aligned with IOC’s renewable-capacity expansion, representing approximately 0.32% of the 31 GW target on a capacity basis, derived from 100 MW divided by 31,000 MW. It would also represent a meaningful addition relative to the 252.1 MW FY25 portfolio, although it should not be counted as installed capacity until commissioning.

The important qualification is that the FY25 investor presentation does not provide a separately quantified “Green Energy” capex target or identify this Rs 755 crore project as a specific line item within such a budget. Therefore, the defensible conclusion is:

• Outlay: Rs 755 crore contractual value.
• Strategic fit: clearly consistent with IOC’s renewable-energy and long-term 31 GW capacity ambition.
• Budget alignment: cannot be expressed as a percentage of an FY25 green-energy capex target because no standalone FY25 green-capex figure is disclosed in the cited presentation.

Verdict: The 100 MW wind project appears intended to support IndianOil’s broader renewable-power and potential refinery-power requirements, but the disclosed information does not establish that the full capacity will be captive, nor does it identify a specific refinery allocation. The project should therefore be treated as a renewable electricity supply asset with possible refinery offtake—not as a confirmed 100 MW captive installation at Panipat, Gujarat, Barauni, or another named location.

Captive-use allocation

• The reported project is a 100 MW turnkey wind order for IndianOil, including turbine supply, EPC, execution and long-term O&M. The disclosure does not specify the percentage intended for captive consumption, the offtake structure, or the refinery receiving the power. ^[1]
• IndianOil’s FY2025-26 disclosures separately refer to renewable power being developed to meet the round-the-clock requirements of refinery expansion projects, including a 50 MW near-term renewable capacity initiative and a broader planned requirement of 650 MW. However, those disclosures do not explicitly link that 100 MW wind order to a particular refinery. ^{[3] [4]}
• The BRSR describes IndianOil’s renewable-energy programme as covering both captive consumption and grid-based power supply. This supports captive use as one possible channel, but does not prove that this specific project is wholly or predominantly captive. ^[5]

Contribution to Scope 1 and Scope 2 reduction

The project’s clearest emissions benefit is through Scope 2 reduction:

• Renewable electricity generated by the wind project could displace electricity purchased from the grid for refineries or other IndianOil operations, provided the power is contractually allocated, wheeled, or consumed within the relevant accounting boundary.
• Its Scope 1 impact would be more limited and conditional. Scope 1 would fall only if the renewable power displaces fossil-fuel-based captive generation or enables electrification of equipment otherwise powered by refinery fuels. The wind project itself does not directly eliminate process emissions or fuel combustion within the refinery.

This fits within IndianOil’s stated pathway to net-zero operational Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2046. Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions were reported at 22.06 MMTCO2e for FY2025-26, with the broader decarbonisation programme also relying on energy efficiency, fuel substitution, green hydrogen, compressed biogas, carbon capture and nature-based measures. ^[3]

The scale is meaningful but not transformational on its own. IndianOil’s existing renewable portfolio was 258.06 MW as of FY2025-26, generating 371.40 GWh and mitigating approximately 273.35 TMT of CO2e. ^[3] If fully commissioned, 100 MW would represent a derived addition equivalent to approximately 38.75% of that existing installed renewable capacity, but it should not be added to the operating base until commissioning is reported. ^[1]

Key limitation: IndianOil has not disclosed project-level annual generation, capacity utilisation, captive-versus-grid allocation, refinery offtake, or avoided-emissions tonnes for this 100 MW project. Consequently, its contribution to the 22.06 MMTCO2e Scope 1-and-2 baseline cannot yet be quantified; the defensible conclusion is that it is a potentially material Scope 2 decarbonisation measure, while its Scope 1 benefit remains dependent on how the power is used.

The 100 MW order would materially increase IOC’s wind exposure, but it is not yet a commissioned capacity addition. IOC’s FY26 installed renewable portfolio was 258.06 MW, comprising 167.60 MW of wind and 90.46 MW of solar; wind therefore represented 64.95% and solar 35.05% of the portfolio, on a nameplate-capacity basis ^[4].

If commissioned in full, the order would increase IOC’s total renewable nameplate capacity by 38.75% and its wind capacity by 59.67%. The resulting mix would be approximately 74.74% wind and 25.26% solar, versus 64.95% and 35.05% currently. These are capacity shares, not generation shares; actual output depends on the wind project’s capacity utilisation and availability.

What is included in the current pipeline

• IOC’s JV with NTPC Green was reported to be on course to commission 50 MW of renewable capacity during the year, but the solar-wind split was not provided ^[3]. I would therefore not assign that 50 MW to either technology or add it to the mix.
• IOC has also described 1 GW of renewable capacity as being in pre-project development through Terra Clean, with approvals for an additional 4.3 GW ^[3]. These are development pipeline figures, not operating or commissioned capacity.
• The company separately reports approximately 180 MW of solar installations across retail outlets ^[6]. Because this is disclosed separately from the 258.06 MW renewable portfolio, it should not be mechanically added to the solar figure without confirming the asset-boundary treatment.

Expected effect on power procurement cost

The order should improve IOC’s access to renewable electricity, but the available disclosures do not support a quantified reduction in its blended power procurement cost.

• The reported contract value is Rs 755 Crores, or Rs 7.55 Crores per MW on a derived basis. However, it includes turbine supply, EPC, project execution and 10-year post-commissioning O&M, so it is an all-in project contract value rather than a disclosed electricity tariff or pure capitalised asset cost ^[1].
• Once operational, the project should shift part of IOC’s power mix from grid, market or conventional procurement toward contracted or internally linked renewable supply. That would introduce a higher fixed-cost component through project capital, financing and O&M, while potentially lowering the variable energy-cost component for the electricity actually generated.
• The savings will not equal 100 MW multiplied by a simple power tariff. The net delivered cost will depend on wind capacity utilisation, transmission and wheeling charges, scheduling, curtailment, banking, balancing power and the contractual allocation of output.
• IOC has a planned 650 MW round-the-clock renewable power requirement for refinery expansions ^[4]. The 100 MW order equals 15.38% of that requirement on a nameplate basis, derived from the reported capacities, but the order has not been explicitly identified as satisfying that requirement. Nor does 100 MW of wind represent 100 MW of firm 24-hour power.

Assessment: strategically, the order makes IOC’s renewable portfolio more wind-heavy and supports refinery decarbonisation. Financially, it is more likely to alter the composition and risk profile of power procurement than to create a visible near-term reduction in total power cost. A quantified cost benefit requires the project’s tariff or internal transfer price, expected generation, grid charges and the amount of conventional power it displaces.